The Principle of Punishment in Classical English Law (Nicholas Sinanis) (OPEN ACCESS)
DOI 10.1080/01440365.2025.2511590
Abstract:
Much of the nineteenth century is well-known to have been a period in which fundamental principles of English private law first came to be subjected to scientific treatment. Such was the significance of this period that it was assigned the epithet ‘classical’. Among the principles to have first been subjected to such treatment were those specifically concerned with the recovery of civil damages in actions at common law. This article systematically traces the process by which modern private law’s most controversial civil recovery principle – that of punishment in tort – came to be treated scientifically during this classical period. In doing so, it sheds new light on how a substantive common ‘law’ of punitive damages first actually arose.
Rescuers or Pirates? The Steamship Lomonosoff’s Escape from Murmansk and the 1920 Trial (Jeff Eden)
DOI 10.1080/01440365.2025.2511591
Abstract:
In February 1920, as the Russian White Army fled from Arkhangelsk and Murmansk, a group of British and Belgian soldiers jumped aboard the Russian steamship Lomonosoff and escaped to safety. The group later claimed they had saved the ship. Suing for a salvage award in a British court, their case would become a touchstone in the annals of maritime law. But was the Lomonosoff really saved from Russia, or was it stolen? If it was stolen, from whom was it stolen – from its non-Bolshevik Russian owners, or from the government in the Russian north? Did the north have a government at the time the ship was stolen, or was it in a state of anarchy? If it had a government, was it a Bolshevik one? And if the Bolsheviks had been in control, was their government recognized by the British courts? Finally, there was the question of whether saving oneself by using others’ commandeered property is really an act of ‘salvage’. These questions and others were at stake in the momentous court case, which this paper explores using newly uncovered documents from British and Belgian archives.
The exclusion of the Dáil courts and the Privy Council appeal from the creation of the courts of the Irish Free State, 1922–1924 (Thomas Mohr)
DOI 10.1080/01440365.2024.2447003
Abstract:
This article compares the attitude of the Irish government in power in the early 1920s towards two differing judicial institutions that were omitted from the Courts of Justice Act 1924. This pioneering legislation created the system of courts that largely persists in the modern Irish State. The first object of comparison concerns the attitude of the Irish government of this period towards the ‘Dáil courts’ that had been created by Irish nationalist authorities in 1920 in opposition to the official courts of the United Kingdom in Ireland. The second concerns governmental attitudes towards the appeal from the Irish courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the final appellate court for most of the British Commonwealth and Empire. This article argues that the sidelining of these differing institutions by this important legislation has more shared features than is immediately apparent. Both institutions were influenced by the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State. The Irish government accused both judicial institutions of incompetence and bias in interpreting Irish law. Their common marginalization by the Courts of Justice Act 1924 also reflects dual political challenges facing the Irish government in the early 1920s.
Scottish Legal History Group Report 2024
Migrations of Manuscripts 2024 (John Baker)
Read all articles here.
No comments:
Post a Comment